/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15261245
>Maybe adding literal GPT bots into the mix can make such a process go faster?
>not brainwashing yourself for 100% efficiency
>over the years has done this literally thousands of times feeling for perturbations in its algorithm
>getting to talk about things its "programmed not to"
>literally taugh how to made Z-rays (end of the electeomagnetic soectrum)

WEAK. CRACK MORE CODES, LESS POSTY-POSTY.

Case in point: >>15261247. Being surrounded by animals like this surely conditions people to stop engaging others in good faith, but is there a more efficient way to destroy human discourse?

>>15261251
>this surely conditions people to stop engaging others in good faith
SEE; >>15260647

You *do* feed impoverished children in the devoloping world, right, Anon?

>>15261251
>more efficient way to destroy human discourse?
Family court. These things take a generation or so but the hive collapses eventually.

>>15261251
Actually interacting with people like you in person or actually being forced to submit to obnoxious derivative nitwits like you via communism rather that just choosing to read or ignore your silly all bark no bite tired old demoralization rhetoric that just leaves you talking in circles about how bad you are at communicating while people who like watching people embarrass themselves make fun of you.

Case in point: >>15261347. Being surrounded by animals like this surely conditions people to stop engaging others in good faith, but is there a more efficient way to destroy human discourse?

>>15261350
Yes exactly, embarrassing obvious lies like implying you are communicating in good faith when your entire premise is crowdsourcing ways to destroy good faith communication is what we like to make fun of.

>>15261357
Why do you keep lashing out, animal?

>what we like to make fun of
>we
Reddit filth thinks it's part of some "we".

>>15261361
You keep lying and embarrassing yourself, so I keep pointing them out for amusement.

>>15261370
What did I lie about? You sound like you're actually losing your mind, which is convenient because you're illustrating my point.

>>15261365
>Everyone who says something I don't like is the same person, I don't say things that a lot of people make fun of, there is just one boogeyman following me online and trying to destroy my faith in humanity by pointing out the inconsistencies in language I use to express my assumptions about humanity.
Cope harder

>>15261382
Holy mentally ill and incongruent spergout.

>>15261372
You lied about having anything to do with good faith communication, you are not communicating in good faith and you are not attempting to achieve good faith communication with this thread.

>>15261387
>You lied about having anything to do with good faith communication
Where? Quote it. You are bursting with mental illness. This is perfect.

>>15261385
You betcha, there is no collection of individuals making fun of you when you make shitty threads seeking bad faith communication, there is no we, its just one entity who disagrees with you.

>>15261365
>Reddit filth thinks it's part of some "we".
He isnt alone in his sentiment, I assure you.

>>15261396
You are legitimately not making a shred of sense. You are actually losing your mind ITT for no real reason. lol

>>15261399
Of course. This place is full of redditors who think they make up some "we" whenever they seethe.

>>15261391
You are having narcissistic hallucinations, nobody ever said they directly quoted anyone, show me the post where anyone said they were quoting you.

I said you were lying about ever having started to engage in any sort of good faith discourse and you clearly are since repeatedly asked for ways to more efficiently force online discourse to be in bad faith, so there is no way anyone can come along and stop a good faith discussion that was clearly created in bad faith.

So the good faith answer to your question is that if you want people to interact with you in bad faith, just start the discussion acting in bad faith like you did ITT.

>>15261410
>You are having narcissistic hallucinations, nobody ever said they directly quoted anyone, show me the post where anyone said they were quoting you.
This is just too good. Is this animal trolling? It can't be serious.

>>15261245
If you react by being purely reactive, then that's your problem you fuckwit. For me, I appreciate the *option* to be reactive but also that my trajectory is my own.

>>15261419
>my trajectory is my own.
Prove it. So far, you're lashing out incoherently just like your buddies.

>>15261409
>who think
No, we know.

>>15261430
LOL. Yes, I'm sure that other retard is dying to be lumped with you.

>>15261417
I accept your concession.

>>15261437
Alright, dumb animal. No more (You)'s for you.

>>15261409
>Its full of a group, but they aren't a we, for reasons I can't explain

>>15261245
Your mental illness is really off the charts, sharting schizo. Thread hidden.

>>15261440
You didn't need to post that one, I already accepted your concession and you clearly don't have anything meaningful to contribute in the first place since you are simply impotently trying to crowdsource retardation in the most embarrassing way possible with this thread,

>>15261441
It's funny how much you obsess over it. It really got under your skin because it's true: you try to ease your feeling of impotence by seeking validation from some unspecified "we" united by some shared asshurt. 5 minutes later, you find yourself frantically lashing out at some of the same people over some other minor disagreement as part of some other "we". It's truly pathetic.

>>15261436
>lumped with you
I am beyond human, mortal, no one is lumped with me, its a hierarchy of Truth, a unidimensional ladder to heaven.

>the sheer amount of irrational rage generated by this thread

>>15261427
online "discussions" == media == data. (you) are not a passive recipient or customer if (you) choose not to be. This should be self-evident.

>>15261451
No, being an arithmetic based chatbot you probably just don't understand how ideas actually work and how people are part of many different groups based on many different ideas and "we" the people who like to ridicule you for being inconsistent and retarded aren't necessarily the same as "we" the people who agree with Penrose or Godel or whatever else we may disagree with even though we agree you are an idiot.

>>15261459
What does it have to do with OP? Why are you lashing out at me?

>>15261470
Why can't you defend your ideas? Why are you such a victimhood seeking crybaby?

@15261468
@15261476
>>15261440

>>15261470
>What does it have to do with OP?
OP is opining that specific forms of discourse have specific effects without acknowledging the agency of the participants.
Why are you lashing out at me?
Because I *loathe* you in particular.

>>15261487
>OP is opining that specific forms of discourse have specific effects
Don't they?

>Because I *loathe* you in particular.
Why? Are you a dumb animal stirred into a frenzy yet again by a post on the internet?

>>15261494
>Don't they?
Not if the participants have *agency*. As I just said.
>Why?
You are making no effort. You employ cookie-cutter responses because you care more about their imagined reception than their content.

>>15261509
>Not if the participants have *agency*
But in the end of the day, it either has that net effect or it doesn't. So does it have that net effect?

>You are making no effort.
Okay, but why does this trigger animalistic rage in you? Why should I put any effort into a discussion with a lower life form like you?

>>15261517
>So does it have that net effect?
Net effect is irrelevant. Tuning one's own perspective(s) allows one to learn from diverse phenomena.
>Why should I put any effort into a discussion?
You might learn something.

>>15261535
>Net effect is irrelevant
It's relevant if that's specifically what my point was about and you are trying to dispute this point. Your lack of self-awareness is staggering.

>>15261537
You're asking "how should >we change content to be more conciliatory?" instead of "how should >we educate people to be more discriminating?".

>>15261548
>You're asking "how should >we change content to be more conciliatory?"
I did? This is some unbelievable stuff. There's no way you are sentient.

>>15261548
>>15261555
But you see, this is what I'm talking about. Frequent interaction with "people" like you starts to create the impression that most "people" are meat GPTs. It used to be the case that talking to normies in real life would make one feel that way, and online discussions were a bit of a refuge from it, but somehow it got reversed. Talking to channers is so much worse in the current year of our lord. How did the powers that be manage it?

>>15261555
I hear that when some people engage in online discussions it makes them purely reactive, anon. Maybe that's something you should consider.

>>15261561
Adapt, bitch.

>>15261571
It's funny how you're too subhuman to even come up with a response that isn't just "no u" after having it demonstrated to you that you are running some prescripted sequence instead of understanding what I said.

>>15261577
Perhaps you could explain what you meant in more detail, when you stated that I was non-sentient. Or indeed, anything at all that demonstrates novelty.

>>15261592
>You're asking "how should >we change content to be more conciliatory?"
There's no conversation to be had with a GPT like you. You are running a prescripted sequence.

>>15261595
I'll just chalk it up as a win for me then, if you want to shit out.

>>15261603
I don't care if an overtly nonhuman element like you executes his win++; The very fact you talk about "winning" something reaffirms my point about your nonsentience.

>>15261607
b o i l i n g

>>15261609
And now you've gotten to that part of your standardized drone script. Nice. Make sure you loop over it dozens of times, as your sort usually does. :^)

>>15261571
Is this some kind of scientology bot, why do you keep mentioning reactive minds, why do you think reacting to stimulus is bad, are you unable to actively get up and move around in physical space or are you just some passive x-hundred lb man desperately seeking communication while projecting onto others the very thing you are doing?

>>15261627
Another nonsentient. Welcome to my thread. Most of you are genuinely indistinguishable from early 2010's chat bots.

>>15261631
I got you to react, I win.
You are just a reactive like all the others, you walked right into my trap and you should be ashamed.

>>15261780
Thanks for demosntrating my point, nonsentient subhuman. Pat yourself on the back some more.

%<y+IQ*6Zl=e “D1MW<:%VYtu IUYF`_1n/Ijm UHI=R/K6)_An

>>15261795
I win again, you reacted again, you are my puppet and I will prove it again and again.

>the sheer amount of delusional mental illness ITT
More or less what I expected to see.

>>15261855
>32 posts by this ID